As we begin the
spring semester, I want to share some thoughts I have had regarding several
recent issues on campus.

In just the past
six months, three unrelated incidents--a research projects funding
source, a published article, and an art exhibit--have understandably disturbed
and offended members of various groups. Specifically, many were affronted
by research funding received by a faculty member from an outside foundation
accused of supporting neo-Nazi and racist agendas, by a students
article on Haiti published by a campus publication, and by the retrospective
exhibit of Andres Serranos photographs at the Institute of Contemporary
Art, especially the notorious "Piss Christ."

Not surprisingly,
the common cry in response to each of these incidents has been: "Why
doesnt the University stop this!"

That is a heartfelt
demand and it deserves a clear response.

We "permit"
these events because, first, in truth, we can never wholly prevent them--and
in each of these recent cases, those responsible acted legally, were clearly
identified, and did not hide behind the illicit screens of anonymity or
vandalism. Second, we permit them because tolerating the intolerable idea
is the price of the freedom of expression without which we cannot survive
as an academic institution. But third, and most important, we permit them
because doing so is the only way to change things. Hearing the hateful
is the only way to identify and educate the hater. Seeing the offensive
is a necessary step to understanding and rejecting the perspective from
which it comes. Seriously considering even the most distasteful idea is
the absolute precondition to arguing effectively against it.

Universities
are places in our society where freedom of expression serves the search
for truth and justice. By mission and by tradition, universities are open
forums in which competing beliefs, philosophies, and values contend. Some
will appear ill-informed, disrespectful, vengeful; in exposing and challenging
them, their flaws become self-evident. That is why we do not close off
debate by official pronouncement. That is why we must use such incidents
to promote debate, to spotlight the hater, and to expose the hateful to
the light of day.

These are issues
that have a long history of debate and discussion on the Penn campus,
dating back at least to the 1960s. Last year, anticipating later recommendations
of the Commission on Strengthening the Community, Interim President Claire
Fagin acted to set Penn on a new course in handling such situations, one
in which the content of speech and expression--that is, ideas--is fundamentally
not a basis for discipline, as set forth in our new Code of Student Conduct.
Only conduct that violates law or interferes with the educational mission
of the University merits punishment. These standards are embodied in the
new Code of Student Conduct, adopted last June, in the Universitys
NonDiscrimination Policy, and in the Guidelines on Open Expression,
which have served the Penn community well for many years.

In recent months,
I have been especially pleased to see the responsible way in which those
offended by the Serrano exhibit voiced their protest in outspoken, but
reasoned and appropriate arguments, and then worked constructively with
the Institute of Contemporary Art to create a forum for the public discussion
of their concerns. Those who have been outraged reading the article published
in The Red and Blue have been encouraged to do likewise. We as
a community are learning to use public discussion and debate to educate
one another and to assert our views.

It is my hope
that, in the future, those who know they may offend--while free to exercise
their right of open expression--will, as a matter of simple courtesy,
open a dialogue ahead of time with groups or individuals they know will
be affected by their exercise of that right. It is vital that we reach
out to each other in this way, because we can learn to use the freedom
of ideas and expression to educate rather than to wound. The University
administrations job is to support such dialogue and debate, not
to cut it off; to create an environment in which we can educate each other,
not one in which doctrine or orthodoxy are legislated from on high.

Will we provide
"moral leadership" to the Penn community? Absolutely. But moral
leadership requires suasion not censorship, conscience not coercion. Most
of all, it requires insisting that we--all of us--talk about what troubles
us. We must all use such occasions to fulfill the Universitys educational
mission for each other. Part of that mission is to educate for leadership,
and we must each take responsibility to respond to our own moral compass
in ways that better the life of our community.

Words are the
life-blood of our university. For all their limitations, even if they
sometimes drive us apart, words are what bind us together in the academy.
Martin Luther King, Jr., understood the power of words. He believed that
we must use them to talk about the difficult and painful issues that divide
us, about race and about religion, about politics and about power, about
gender and about identity. But I urge you to choose carefully the words
you use. The words of hatred and bigotry, insult and ignorance, destroy
dialogue and community and must be answered. I hope the day will come
when no one in our community will use such words or inflict pain on others
with intent. But until then, when we are faced with words of offense and
awfulness, we must draw those who use them into the dialogue of ideas.
That is the essential precondition of the dynamics of change. That is
why we must censure speech, but never censor speakers.

In the last two
years, this community has found that we cannot, with policies and procedures,
legislate the unlegislatable. But, as a community, we must demand adherence
to the norms of rational argument and simple civility which are so important
to furthering the dialogue of ideas. We must learn what Dr. King called
"obedience to the unenforceable," learning to show the care
and compassion for each other that no law or regulation can enforce.

If we can learn
this lesson and put it into practice, then we can create together a model
community in which individual and group differences form a mosaic that
shows the beauty of our differences, not a melting pot that tries to mask
them in a homogenous mix. We are a community of different identifies,
and we must create a context in which a true diversity of views and opinions,
persons and groups, politics and perspectives, is nurtured, valued and
shared. We must openly celebrate our differentness as well as our similarities,
and engage one another across all the boundaries of race, ethnicity, nationality,
age, religion, gender and sexual orientation, politics and expression.
But let us raise the level of the discourse, dispense with the intention
to hurt, and each take more responsibility for all the members of our
community.

In that spirit,
I welcome you back from winter vacation to the exciting challenges that
lie ahead.